10pence tax band

[Claw75]

Quite scary to see how this kind of literature could pursuade a lot of the tabloid reading voting public to stick their x in the BNP box.

It is scary, but whats more scary is all they have to say in my local area is "Only LD & Labour can win here, any vote for anyone else means labour will get in"...  Makes me want to vote for them so much.. 

i would never vote for the BNP...but the whole "vote for anyone else or else you're actualy voting Labour" just reminds me of just how badly you need proportional representation.

Agree 100% with this.

BNP go further on the leaflet I've got from them re Labour.  They say don't post your postal vote, take it to the ballot box - labour supporters are stealing postal votes.

[Jon MW]

Quite scary to see how this kind of literature could pursuade a lot of the tabloid reading voting public to stick their x in the BNP box.

It is scary, but whats more scary is all they have to say in my local area is "Only LD & Labour can win here, any vote for anyone else means labour will get in"...  Makes me want to vote for them so much.. 

i would never vote for the BNP...but the whole "vote for anyone else or else you're actualy voting Labour" just reminds me of just how badly you need proportional representation.

The London Assembly election is partly by proportional representation (14 constituency members and 11 PR party  members I think).

And I'm sure the BNP would love it if all elections were completely proportional representation, PR is and always has been the most likely and easiest way for far right groups to win seats - and if their is a close result (which their usually is with proportional representation) - to gain power as a minority group in a coalition.

There is an article partly to do with the problem that proportional representation offers the opportunity to the far right groups to gain ground in the London elections - here

[boldie]

Quite scary to see how this kind of literature could pursuade a lot of the tabloid reading voting public to stick their x in the BNP box.

It is scary, but whats more scary is all they have to say in my local area is "Only LD & Labour can win here, any vote for anyone else means labour will get in"...  Makes me want to vote for them so much.. 

i would never vote for the BNP...but the whole "vote for anyone else or else you're actualy voting Labour" just reminds me of just how badly you need proportional representation.

The London Assembly election is partly by proportional representation (14 constituency members and 11 PR party  members I think).

And I'm sure the BNP would love it if all elections were completely proportional representation, PR is and always has been the most likely and easiest way for far right groups to win seats - and if their is a close result (which their usually is with proportional representation) - to gain power as a minority group in a coalition.

There is an article partly to do with the problem that proportional representation offers the opportunity to the far right groups to gain ground in the London elections - here

It is also the best way for parties that are not the far right and not the main three to get into parliament. ..give and take and all that.  Before Holland turned violently right-wing in the past few years we found that without proportional representation we would probably have had a biggerright wing faction in Holland..but because we had 2 of those right-wing donkeys in parliament everybody could see just how stupid they were..and people stopped voting for them.

[Claw75]

Quite scary to see how this kind of literature could pursuade a lot of the tabloid reading voting public to stick their x in the BNP box.

It is scary, but whats more scary is all they have to say in my local area is "Only LD & Labour can win here, any vote for anyone else means labour will get in"...  Makes me want to vote for them so much.. 

i would never vote for the BNP...but the whole "vote for anyone else or else you're actualy voting Labour" just reminds me of just how badly you need proportional representation.

The London Assembly election is partly by proportional representation (14 constituency members and 11 PR party  members I think).

And I'm sure the BNP would love it if all elections were completely proportional representation, PR is and always has been the most likely and easiest way for far right groups to win seats - and if their is a close result (which their usually is with proportional representation) - to gain power as a minority group in a coalition.

There is an article partly to do with the problem that proportional representation offers the opportunity to the far right groups to gain ground in the London elections - here

but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  The introduction of PR is also the only way I could ever see a general election becoming more than a two horse race.

[Jon MW]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

[Bongo]

People who don't vote don't actually support anyone. What would you prefer, have the majority of parliament empty because no one cares?

[Claw75]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

[Jon MW]

People who don't vote don't actually support anyone. What would you prefer, have the majority of parliament empty because no one cares?

Er no, I'd prefer them to care.

[kinboshi]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

[Claw75]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

[kinboshi]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

It's still undemocratic to force anyone to vote, under any system.  Everyone has the right to abstain from voting.  Many should...

[Claw75]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

It's still undemocratic to force anyone to vote, under any system.  Everyone has the right to abstain from voting.  Many should...

they can spoil their paper

[Jon MW]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

It's still undemocratic to force anyone to vote, under any system.  Everyone has the right to abstain from voting.  Many should...

They could be given the option on the ballot paper to mark "No Suitable Candidate" (or "Abstain" if that would be simpler)

[Graham C]

Britain doesn't have a "none of the above option", perhaps it's an idea to do so.

[Claw75]

...
but if we want a true democracy then this is the only way to go imo.  Yes the far right groups would gain, but that is what it's all about - if 5% of the people voting want the BNP to speak for them, then they should have 5% of the representation, no matter how abhorrent the majority of the public finds their views.  ...

...
which is why a democracy is a bad idea.

The part I would disagree with would be, "...of the people voting...".

If 5% of the population supported the BNP then democratic fairness would give them 5% of the vote.

But minority and single issue groups (which however much they pretend - they are both) tend to be much better than the mainstream parties at getting their supporters out to vote.

So if only 50% of people voted, but all the BNP supporters voted, they would control 5% of parliament whilst only representing 2.5% of the country (these figures may be made up - but they are feasible).

Therefore their power under proportional representation would be twice their support - how is this fair?

I would also not be against the idea of compulsory voting

That's undemocratic.

i should have said i would not be against the idea IF PR were introduced.  I don't think it makes a shred of difference under the current system.

It's still undemocratic to force anyone to vote, under any system.  Everyone has the right to abstain from voting.  Many should...

They could be given the option on the ballot paper to mark "No Suitable Candidate" (or "Abstain" if that would be simpler)

or the usual reason people give - "they're all as bad as each other"